Error on my credit report

rebeccak

A couple of months ago I made an overpayment on my mortgage (which is allowed under the terms of my mortgage) but somehow Nat West allocated it as arrears (!) so, despite having made every monthly payment on time, I was sent a letter saying that I was in arrears and could lose my home. This was eventually sorted out and they sent me a letter saying that it had been an error and I wasn't in arrears. I asked them whether it would appear on my credit records and was told that it wouldn't but, to cut a long story short, I've just checked my Equifax credit record and it shows that I was in arrears in April. I've sent an online message to Equifax that I dispute this (with a scan of the letter from Nat West) and I plan to ring Nat West when they are open.

I'm just wondering do all the credit companies get their information from the same source so, if Equifax (or Nat West) change the April information on my records will it automatically be correct for all the credit references companies or do I need to request a credit report from each company and dispute the information with each of them? Is there anything else I should be doing?

fermi

Natwest should update all 3 CRAs (or the ones they report to at least) when they do the correction.

I would ask Natwest to correct the data with all CRAs they report to, then check those when applicable to make sure it's done.

GingerBob_3

The underlying issue here, of course, is why should anyone EVER have to check data held against them at the CRAs, and have to spend money to do so? And then jump through hoops to have it corrected. Can it not be guaranteed to be correct? If not, why not? And if not, then why don't the CRAs alert people when potentially damaging information has been posted against them? To make matters worse, there's not just one of these bunch of bounders potentially blacklisting you, there's three of 'em, !!!!!!!

rebeccak

Well, Equifax haven't responded so far and I phoned Nat West and spoke to someone there but the correct department are "very busy" at the moment but will "hopefully" phone me back in the next 24 hours.

However, I've got a new problem as I've had a letter today from American Express saying that, having reviewed my information, including my credit record, they have cancelled my card with immediate effect - I can discuss this with one of their staff if I want but the account will not be reinstated. I have never missed a single payment but the wrong information from Nat West obviously flags me up as a risk.

So my questions are:

- Is this the start of a wider issue? Will other credit card companies, utility companies etc be reviewing my credit record regularly and can I expect more problems?

- Even if Nat West correct the wrong information, will my credit file still show that American Express have decided to terminate my contract, making me still look like a risk?

I've also had a letter through the post from another credit card company offering a card which allows people with bad credit histories to gradually re-build their credit rating. Am I still going to end up having to work to restore my credit worthiness, even though I've never missed payment? :-(

fermi

Formal complaint to Amex saying this is a result of false information placed on your report by Natwest, and unless Amex suspend their action now they are aware of this pending the correction, you will be taking Amex to the FOS for redress and compensation regarding any harm their actions may have caused.

Ditto with Natwest for the damage they may have caused.

rebeccak

Well, NatWest never bothered to call me back... I've submitted a complaint on their website.

fermi

Call the FOS and ask if the will contact them for you?

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm

Sometimes they will, and that puts the wind up the bank.

SeduLOUs

GingerBob wrote: »

The underlying issue here, of course, is why should anyone EVER have to check data held against them at the CRAs, and have to spend money to do so? And then jump through hoops to have it corrected. Can it not be guaranteed to be correct? If not, why not? And if not, then why don't the CRAs alert people when potentially damaging information has been posted against them? To make matters worse, there's not just one of these bunch of bounders potentially blacklisting you, there's three of 'em, !!!!!!!

Nothing can be ever be 'guaranteed' to be correct. The sheer number of customers that lenders have mean that inevitably mistakes will sometimes happen, and as consumers we have to take some responsibility for keeping an eye on our own affairs.

When I was signed up to CreditExpert, I used to get a notification if anything adverse had been added to my report. It wasn't value for money though, so I now I check Noddle (for free) every month. Noddle currently has info on all of my accounts so I can safely assume that the other two are probably OK aswell - I obtain my statutory reports once a year (or before making an important application like a mortgage) just to be sure.

I can live with spending £6 a year for peace of mind.

GingerBob_3

SeduLOUs wrote: »

Nothing can be ever be 'guaranteed' to be correct. The sheer number of customers that lenders have mean that inevitably mistakes will sometimes happen, and as consumers we have to take some responsibility for keeping an eye on our own affairs.

When I was signed up to CreditExpert, I used to get a notification if anything adverse had been added to my report. It wasn't value for money though, so I now I check Noddle (for free) every month. Noddle currently has info on all of my accounts so I can safely assume that the other two are probably OK aswell - I obtain my statutory reports once a year (or before making an important application like a mortgage) just to be sure.

I can live with spending £6 a year for peace of mind.

Yes, but that shouldn't include having to monitor the background reporting that goes on between large numbers of organisations and the CRAs. We have no relationship with the CRAs so we shouldn't have to be constantly alert to the fact that they may be holding adverse data against us.